(Carlow-Kilkenny): Tá mé fíor buíoch duit go bhfuil an deis seo agam daileáil leis an fhadhb seo. I regret I do not have the facilities of the O.J. Simpson trial, because I have a map, which is difficult to depict, but I will use the Dáil Chamber by way of illustration. If one takes the Opposition benches as the first section of Carlow town which received urban renewal — the Opposition being more in need of renewal than the Government side — the podium on which you sit, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, is the building left out of the scheme. One must also imagine the River Barrow flowing behind the doors beside the podium, so there is nothing behind that chair. In 1994, the area represented by this side of the House became eligible for urban renewal, but the building in question was left out, isolated in its magnificence.
This building was erected in the 1700s and used by the canal company as a hotel, or an inn, as it would have been referred to then. If urban renewal means anything, this building should have been included but it was left out on both occasions. I still do not understand how anyone who looked at a map of Carlow or walked on its streets could have omitted it. To do so would not have opened up a vista; if one included buildings across the street from it, that would open up one side of the town but this building was backed by the Barrow, so no new options were being included.
I pointed this out to the Minister and presented him with a map which was coloured in to show the glorious isolation of this building. I spoke to his officials and explained it so well I thought no-one could possibly allow this dreadful mistake to continue. I felt confident it would be included when renewal came. I am devastated that neither logic, common sense nor justice prevailed in the urban renewal review. Half of Cork city and Cobh were included in the scheme. I called for the inclusion of an 18th century building which was used as an inn and was probably written about by Goldsmith, but it was left out. I explained everything and wish to know what logic was used in deciding this mistake could not be rectified, once it was pointed out. I told the officials what they said to me was completely illogical.
I cannot understand why a building with such an historic background can be omitted while other places are included. The site stood on its own, with the river behind it, so it did not cause a major problem for the Department — there was no question of another 200 houses becoming eligible through its inclusion. What measure was used to ignore the advice I gave the Department? I was quite pleasant to the officials but in the summer, when I discovered what happened, I was far from pleasant and I notice the wording for this motion is much calmer than the text I submitted. Can this undoubted wrong now be righted?
